[core-workflow] Use buildbot to test tracker patches

[Mark Lawrence]

On 05/07/2014 13:46, Ezio Melotti wrote:
> Hi,
> I recently had a chance to learn a bit more about buildbot, and it
> occurred to me than adding a new builder for testing tracker patches
> shouldn't be too difficult.
>
> This is how it should work:
>    1) a new "Test with buildbot" (or whatever) button is added to the
> tracker next to each patch, and developers/triagers can press it to
> trigger the build;
>    2) the buildbot builder receives the URL of the issue and of the
> patch and run all the usual steps with two differences:
>      a) a new step to run "hg import --no-c url_of_the_patch" is added
> after the cloning step;
>      b) an email with the results is sent back to the bug tracker once
> the slaves are done;
>
> Unless I'm missing something, both these changes should be trivial.
> On the tracker side is enough to add a form with a couple of (hidden)
> fields with the URLs and a submit button.  On the buildbot side it
> should be enough to create a new builder (by copying one of the
> existing ones in the buildbot config file and adding the two steps
> mentioned above).  Putting together a mail summary with the results of
> all the slaves might require a bit of extra code, but it shouldn't be
> anything too difficult.
>
> Some of the issues with this proposal are:
>    1) users uploading patches with malicious code -- this shouldn't be
> a problem if we only allow developers/triagers to trigger the build
> manually and tell them to review the code before doing so;
>    2) overloading of the slaves -- cloning/compiling/testing/cleaning
> takes quite a lot of time, and if this new feature starts to be used
> heavily it might start to give too much work for the slaves.  I don't
> know what the current load is though, so I'm not sure this will be an
> issue;
>    3) testing/implementing the feature -- I think it should be possible
> to test the feature locally before actually applying the changes on
> the real buildbot master, but unless someone is going to apply them on
> my behalf I would probably need access to the buildbot repo (is there
> a public repo?);
>    4) determine which branch the patch should be applied to -- this
> could be done by adding a new "branch" field on the tracker; rietveld
> could use it too;
>    5) if the patch fails to apply there's no need to launch the build
> on all the slaves -- a single slave (or maybe even the master?) could
> check if the patch applies cleanly, and if it does trigger all the
> other slaves.  More fine-grained options could be added to the request
> form too (e.g. run only on specific slaves/operating systems);
>
> If the idea is reasonable and I didn't miss anything I can try to find
> some time to work on it.
>
> Best Regards,
> Ezio Melotti

Anything to make life easier for everybody.

I'd offer to help myself, but having seen the name of a well known PITA 
on this thread I simply won't bother, it's just more trouble than it's 
worth.

I'm fully aware that I'm no angel, but I can at least plead mitigating 
circumstances.

-- 
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask 
what you can do for our language.

Mark Lawrence

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com